Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 9 November 2010

2010 Karachi plane crash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not the news. Routine air crash which fails our air accident notability essay WP:AIRCRASH and most parts of WP:EVENT, the Guideline which interprets the GNG for current events. MickMacNee (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far from routine. An aircrash with 21 fatalities (do these happen on a routine basis - no they don't), no different from this which is on the frontpage. As you say, it fails the essay WP:AIRCRASH, which isn't a policy. This easily meets WP:GNG:

Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Check.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Check.
"Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Check.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Check.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Check too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason for deletion is for failing NOT#NEWS (policy), EVENT (GNG equivalent guideline), and AIRCRASH (topic specific essay). Simply meeting the GNG criteria does not defeat that, because as you point out in No. 5, (but don't seemed to have understood by giving it a 'check'), passing the GNG is just a presumption of notability, not a free pass, it is not our only policy and it is not our only guideline. To give an example of how poor this defence is to the actual nomination, your run down of the GNG criteria here would mean every single thing on Google News right now deserves an article. Check? No. And your actual use of the GNG isn't that great either - in your copy and past of the 'Sources' criteria for example, you conveniently left out the multiple sources caveat, for which multiple news reports sourced from the same few wires/quotes, is not considered multiple sourcing. And from NOT#NEWS, when they all say the exact same thing, it is not considered evidence of significant coverage either, but is simply routine news coverage reflecting the relative importance to news organisations, but meaningless when considering the encyclopoedic importance. And on that score, yes, it is entirely routine that when an airplane crashes into the ground, all the people on board die. It is also entirely routine that every now and again, a plane somewhere in the world falls out of the sky. Infact in Pakistan, quite often actually. You've given no evidence there was anything unusual about this particular crash, and don't even seem to realise why the other article you cite is considered historically significant and noteworthy, beyond simple news values. Nothing about your insistence that this is not a routine accident demonstrates how anyone in ten years time will not look back on this accident as anything other than just another routine aircrash. You want Wikipedia's role to be an aircrash database? Or a permanent memorial to such tragedies? Fine, then go and get WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL deleted as parts of the policy NOT, which is, as a core policy, more important than the GNG all day every day. Simply meeting the GNG simply doesn't cut it for these sorts of aircrashes, not by a long way. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It meets the guidance cited. Thanks for your input. Lugnuts (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You can either read, understand, and reply to the above comments, or you can't. Don't simply make nonsense statements in reply and pretend they make sense, that's just idiotic behaviour frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL specifically directs editors not to do what you did with that non-reply above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a non-reply - fully citied policy that I've refered to, instead of your psuedo-essay. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-reply" refers to this, not your original response. To the closer - please note that despite what he claims here, this user has still failed to answer my rebuttal of 6 Nov 14:06, and thus the points still stand for consideration. Also please note that again, despite what he claims here, he is surely well aware by now (if he really cannot deduce it from the original nomination) that an essay is not the only reason for deletion. This fact has been stated and restated enough on this page already. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does! idiotic? that's really stupid! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it then, answer the points above. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per reasons above. Zbase4 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERNOM. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ~~MickMacNee's ~~Lugnut's statement. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)~~~~[reply]

??????????? What? MickMacNee is the one whose trying to delete this. Either your vote is delete according to MickMacNee's statement or Keep according to Lugnuts statement Zbase4 (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, WP:PERNOM. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Tragic event and important news event. But not every crash is notable and I see no specific things establishing notability here... L.tak (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Truth be told, Mick, were I in your shoes, I wouldn't dare wave the PERNOM flag after having claimed "failing" the provisions of an essay to be a valid deletion ground. That being said, let's examine your only other citation, that to WP:EVENT. First comes the Lasting Events clause, which states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Strike one. The second is Geographical Scope, "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." This is an event receiving international front page coverage. Strike two. Depth of coverage? There's plenty of that. Duration of coverage? "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." This is a crash that occurred two days ago, and it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand. Diversity of sources? A slam dunk there too. The truth is that despite your assertion that this article fails "most parts" of WP:EVENT, it doesn't fail any part of it as of yet. RGTraynor 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can ignore our only topic specific essay all you like, it hardly makes your argument any weightier. As for your reading of EVENT, it's pretty poor actually. A strike for the one bit it does meet, and ignore all the bits it can't/won't yet, without giving any reason to do so? That doesn't stand up at all. And on that score, you really shouldn't think that you can simply get away with asserting this has depth of coverage, when it simply doesn't. And as for diversity, you need to read up on what that is also, because you've got that wrong aswell. If you want clarification on what those passages actually refer to, try the guideline's talk page, because your own interpretations are way off. Like I said, fails most parts of EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn straight I'm ignoring your essay, because frankly, declaring it to be a valid deletion ground is a facepalm to AfD contributors. Also damn straight I'm ignoring the bits of WP:EVENT that don't come into play yet. That "it's desperately premature to claim this as a leg upon which to stand" got past you as the stated reason, I can't help. RGTraynor 03:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'my' essay, it was crafted by members of the Aviation project based what does and does not usually make a notable air incident worthy of its own article, so like I said, ignore it all you want, it hardly adds any weight to your argument, especially if you cannot offer any evidence as to why its contents should be ignored. As for ignoring bits of EVENT based on the idea that it's somehow premature to consider them, that is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Per that policy, creation of the article waits for EFFECT to be met, not the other way around. We simply do not retain articles until they can meet all the requirements, quite the reverse. And given the fact that even news coverage of this incident has already dried up, your claims that this incident is going to even meet criteria like INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE in future seem pretty hollow. And waiting is not going to change the definition of DIVERSE either, which you seem to have sidestepped. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need any evidence to ignore your essay. It's an essay, and only reflects the personal opinions of the writers. It has zero policy weight. Secondly, your citation of WP:CRYSTAL is well to the left of farcical; that policy strictly, and explicitly, concerns future events. This is hardly a future event. As far as press coverage vanishing, 10 seconds search turned up over a dozen articles in the last 24 hours. Finally, I haven't claimed that this incident will meet INDEPTH and PERSISTENCE. How could I know that? More to the point, how could you? We have no idea one way or another. THAT is why an AfD is badly premature. Check back six months from now and we'll see. RGTraynor 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you can't ignore the essay (and have said so three times now). All I'm saying is it doesn't help your argument one bit if you do, certainly if your only reason for doing so is that it's only an essay. WP:ATA, where that comes from, is also an essay, but ignoring its advice based on the fact it's just an essay is not going to make any Afd argument sound very weighty at all, I'm sure you can agree. Or maybe not. As for CRYSTAL, I think you'll find that not creating articles prematurely is at the very heart of that policy. If you are not even sure that this can meet EVENT, then why even bother pretending you've rebutted the deletion rationale? Such a 'wait and see' vote is not valid policy, if it fails now (which it does even by ommission), it gets deleted unless or until it can be shown to meet it later. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the midst of writing another rebuttals, but sheesh ... arguing that we should delete an article based on an essay? Claiming that WP:CRYSTAL applies to events that have already happened? This has entered into the realm of farce; DNFT, and all. RGTraynor 20:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice. The essay is not the only reason for deletion, but me having to restate that yet again, shows which way the trolling has been going in this sub-thread. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 100% agreed with User:Lugnuts. nomi887 (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closer please note that this is yet another WP:PERNOM vote. What I fear we have here is a case of Wikipedia:Follow the leader on Lugnut's statement abut the GNG, which, given the fact that it contains serious errors and ommissions per my rebuttal, and that neither he or any of the followers has attempted to even answer it, these votes should be weighted accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep notable event which has recieved coverage. Plane crashes are not ordinary in part of the world. Mar4d (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it is notable, instead of just asserting it, preferably showing how the deletion rationale is invalid in that respect. We do not keep articles simply because they recieve coverage, nor do we keep articles if they are on unusual events. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Routine accident? whao! Elmao (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:PERNOM and follow the leader... MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Doesn't surprise me that the nominator has completely got the wrong idea, again....♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, closer please note, this editor has not even given a rationale for their vote (except an attack on the nominator), and thus, should be discounted per WP:NOTAVOTE. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MickMacNee, we know you strongly support the deletion of this article. But you are doing nothing to change the opinions of people here by replying to every single one of them with some policy which explains why they are invalid. Not only does it change nothing about whatever the outcome of this discussion is, it is really quite WP:POINTY. wacky wace 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what that is meant to mean. wacky wace 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It means "I doubt it." MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the President of Pakistan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, the UN Secretary General or a famous actress etc, were on the plane? I can see were it would notable. I know this seems cruel, but I've never even heard of the crash, until today. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? No. Will this be even remembered in a few years. No. Delete. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that user MickMacNee is fighting under many articles for deletion, so there is no point arguing with him. He also is/was banned from some sections of Wikipedia. From my side is a skip-it, let him to argue with himself, with his essey's Elmao (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that I am not, and have never been, 'banned' from any area of Wikipedia. The accuracy of anything this user has to say in this Afd should be seen in that light tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events, but major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story. This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" - Really? What is non-routine then about the news coverage of this incident? A plane crashed and the news reported it in the exact same way they would do for any similar event. This is not a rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT deletion nomination at all

"major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story" - So what? The closer should note that every single aircrash, no matter how big or small, is always investigated (and yes, always thoroughly too!). This simple fact of life is completely irrelevant to establishing whether this crash is notable or not, or worthy of a stand-alone article on Wikipedia or not (unless the assertion is that all aircrashes are always notable? - this is not the case on Wikipedia at all)

"This event is every bit as notable as Air Midwest Flight 5481 which involved the same aircraft model" - Thirdly, so what? This is a complete and utterly irrelevant Other Crap Exists argument. Yes it involved the same aircraft, but that other article also has not one, but two, claims to lasting notability that this incident does not. This is again completely irrelevant to the deletion rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ::::::WP:CIVIL specifically directs editors not to do what you did with that non-reply above. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 :Hardly a non-reply - fully citied policy that I've refered to, instead of your psuedo-essay. Thanks. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Lugnuts|talk]]) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
+::The "non-reply" refers to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Karachi_plane_crash&diff=next&oldid=395306880 this], not your original response. To the closer - please note that despite what he claims here, this user has still failed to answer my rebuttal of 6 Nov 14:06, and thus the points still stand for consideration. Also please note that again, despite what he claims here, he is surely well aware by now (if he really cannot deduce it from the original nomination) that an essay is not the only reason for deletion. This fact has been stated and restated enough on this page already. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::::Yes it does! idiotic? that's really stupid! [[User:Elmao|Elmao]] ([[User talk:Elmao|talk]]) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 :::::Prove it then, answer the points above. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 55: / Line 57: @@
 *'''Notable? No. Will this be even remembered in a few years. No.''' Delete. --[[User:Diego Grez|Diego Grez]] ([[User talk:Diego Grez|talk]]) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' Please note that user '''MickMacNee''' is fighting under many articles for deletion, so there is no point arguing with him. He also is/was banned from some sections of Wikipedia. From my side is a skip-it, let him to argue with himself, with his essey's [[User:Elmao|Elmao]] ([[User talk:Elmao|talk]]) 11:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
+*:And please note that I am not, and have never been, 'banned' from any area of Wikipedia. The accuracy of anything this user has to say in this Afd should be seen in that light tbh. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events, but major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story. This event is every bit as notable as [[Air Midwest Flight 5481]] which involved the same aircraft model. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 15:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
+:*"Fatal and disastrous air crashes like this are not routine news events" - Really? What is non-routine then about the news coverage of this incident? A plane crashed and the news reported it in the exact same way they would do for any similar event. This is not a rebuttal to a NOT#NEWS / EVENT deletion nomination at all
+:*"major disasters which prompt deep and thorough and investigations which last much longer than the initial news story" - So what? The closer should note that every single aircrash, no matter how big or small, is always investigated (and yes, always thoroughly too!). This simple fact of life is completely irrelevant to establishing whether this crash is notable or not, or worthy of a stand-alone article on Wikipedia or not (unless the assertion is that all aircrashes are always notable? - this is not the case on Wikipedia at all)
+:*"This event is every bit as notable as [[Air Midwest Flight 5481]] which involved the same aircraft model" - Thirdly, so what? This is a complete and utterly irrelevant [[WP:OSE|Other Crap Exists]] argument. Yes it involved the same aircraft, but that other article also has not one, but two, claims to lasting notability that this incident does not. This is again completely irrelevant to the deletion rationale. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 18:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)